City Council, February 28th - Meyer Farm and Design Speeds

The big item on Council's agenda for Monday is deliberation on the appeal of approvals for the subdivision at the Meyer Farm site.

In the bundle of new material submitted to Council, there is nothing new on claims for historical significance of the property and buildings. These remain murky and in several cases mere assertion without any proof or with very thin evidence. The antiquity of a barn, for example, remains legend, wholly without any supporting public documentation or argument.

So there is nothing new to say on the history, unfortunately.

Essentially all of the new material, for and against, focuses on three main areas:

• Legal: Even if you think it's a bad subdivision plan, it meets approval criteria and should be approved.
• Legal: The Trust is still in dispute and any approval should be on pause.
• Ecological: The tree plan is terrible and we should preserve more of the old Oaks.

The Staff Recommendation is to affirm the prior approval. As I read the file, I don't see Council having a lot of room to maneuver for a denial or modification. Maybe they will find a way. 

There remain problems with the framework and approval criteria, however.

If we want to induce more middle housing and a pattern for less autoist land use, so many large greenfields are still being planned with large lots and single detached housing. Even with the bundle of new code amendments to go into force next month, the incentives in code may not be robust or aligned quite right yet for the course-correction.

Hopefully the new tree code and middle housing amendments will be helpful, and similar new subdivisions will find ways to preserve more old Oaks.

Here, the traffic analysis and design proposals are unhelpful. That's what we'll comment on.

There should be a way to consider this more

Some have proposed a "reasonable design alternative" for the alignment of the new Hilfiker segment, a collector street. It would miss all or most of the "significant" trees and would still allow development to proceed. This looks like a good compromise!

The Staff Report rebuffs it.

Hilfiker Lane is designated as a collector street in the Salem Transportation System Plan (TSP). The design speed for a collector street is 35 MPH and the minimum centerline radius for a collector street is 510 feet. The alignment for Hilfiker Lane currently put forth by the applicant requires a design exception to reduce the speed to 25 MPH and minimum centerline radius to 200 feet. Because of the residential nature of this street, with driveways along both sides and on-street parking, staff is supportive of a design speed of 25 MPH.

If the curves along Hilfiker Lane are relocated to the north-west and become sharper, the street may not be able to meet even the 25 MPH design speed. Staff would not likely support a design speed of less than 25 MPH for a collector street....

Associated with Councilor Stapleton's initiation of a Twenty is Plenty scheme for residential streets, some have pointed to Seattle's move for 25mph on collector and arterial streets. (See here and here.) There is no good reason not to start reducing speeds on all our urban streets, and there are many positive reasons to make that reduction. We need to shift the primary frame from congestion relief to safety and making it easier for people not to drive.

Seattle speed limits - City of Seattle

The applicant includes a one-page memo from a consulting land use planner that dismisses the alternative concept. The reasons mostly boil down to: It would be inconvenience for us to have to change the plan.

One element of their objection is worth pausing on.

By shifting the alignment, the radii are significantly tighter, creating a more dangerous driving condition for users.

This is autoist. Safety for whom? The only users who count here are drivers exceeding the speed limit and who require "forgiveness" in road design. We do not adequately consider the needs of non-driving road users and safety for them.

Tighter turning radii that that require slower driving are a potential feature rather than bug.

Just as the collector street inside the proposed development deserves attention, the arterial just outside it, and immediately adjacent to Leslie Middle School and a park, also deserves attention. Battle Creek/Pringle Road is terrible! And the traffic analysis is not helping right now.

It's time to be more flexible on design speed

From the Staff Report again:

Staff does not believe there is a sight distance issue at this intersection [The compound elbow at Hilfiker/Hillrose/Battle Creek/Pringle]. Requirements for intersection site distance are based upon the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.” The sight distance evaluation criteria in AASHTO uses the “design speed” rather than “posted speed.” The intersection of Battle Creek Road SE and Pringle Road SE is classified as a minor arterial. The City of Salem Design Standards require that arterial streets are designed for 45 MPH. The posted speed along this segment of roadway is 40 MPH.

The crosswalk and refuge at Copper Glen Drive

Leslie Middle School is just a few blocks north. It is ridiculous that the City still insists on fatal design and posted speeds here, even with the temporary mitigation of a School Zone during parts of the day. Though the City recently installed a crosswalk and median at Copper Glen, the vista from a car is for a speedway. Insisting on a design speed for 45mph here is inconsistent with safety for kids and anyone on foot or rolling. Neighbors are right to protest this.

We have to get away from overvaluing congestion relief, free-flow, and zooming on our city streets.

The developers have thrown in one element of compromise. They have offered speed humps on Albert Drive. That could be useful, but without looking more at Hilfiker and Battle Creek/Pringle Road, it might be more symbolic than substantive.

A concession? Speed humps on Albert Drive

Bullets for the rest:

• Second reading of the package of amendments for the Fairview project. Council seems to be moving forward with the package now, and letting the chips fall as they may on any appeal to LUBA, as one person has threatened. There does not seem to be very much formal interest in understanding why the "Fairview Mixed Use Zone" has generated hardly any actual mixed use.
  
• An information report on approval for rezoning what had been called the Bone Parcel, "A Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change from RA (Residential Agriculture) and NCMU (Neighborhood Center Mixed Use) to RM-II (Multiple Family Residential)." (See previous note here.)
• An information report on dividing the former Lancaster Mall into three lots, in anticipation of modernizing and redeveloping portions of it.
• And an information report on an amended phasing plan for a subdivision way out south on an unbuilt section of Lone Oak Road. Maybe there needs to be a Fire Department SDC or Fire Reimbursement District if the cost for new fire service for single detached housing on the edge of the city is externalized and off-loaded to the rest of the city to be subsidized in a bond or by other funding. We should talk more about our preference for this style of development on the edges and the problem of longer fire response time to it.